Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #159

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the PCA, a woman stated she went to the bridge, saw a man on the bridge, turned around and went back down the trail. Walking away from the bridge she saw what LE believes to be A & L walking towards the bridge. So, assuming he is the bad guy self-reporting. Not only was he seen, he saw someone see him on the bridge. So when he self reported, he had to put himself on the bridge. And it was between 1:30-3:30, the time of the crime. Wearing clothes that match the man in Libby's video.

Unbelievably, the follow up recommendations at the bottom of the report from the conservation officer that includes this information indicate that LE needs to find the young ladies that Rick told the officer he saw on the trails that day. Maybe they have some information that can help find the bad guy! Smh.
To be fair though this was probably very very early on in the investigation. A top priority was to probably find every witness who was on the trail around the right time.
Allen claimed to have seen no possible suspect, perhaps the 3 girls had seen someone they may well have been more valuable witnesses. The officer at the time did not know all we know now. His job was to probably just take very basic details of who was around the area at the time, and to get contact details of who came forward. It was the detectives and other LE who had to job to follow up and do proper interviews with people like Allen. Of course it's still kinda unknown at this stage how this report slipped through the cracks.
 
As I just happen to have it on hand, this was it from 2017. As the information he offered is limited, it doesn’t appear he was formally questioned.

View attachment 384593
Yeah, I think it's pretty standard to do a very basic interview like this at first contact. After all from what we know it was Allen who came forward. Pretty much Just the basic details to gather, and their contact details. Now clearly something went very wrong because it should have been passed on to more senior LE who would have sent out detectives etc to do a proper interview with Allen. Because after all he was a key witness and POI given he placed himself on the trails during a key time that day.
 
It's not even clear how the conservation officer got involved. Attorneys claim that RA called the police... It sounds more like maybe he called whatever office the conservation officer belongs to and he agreed to meet RA somewhere to take a statement. Conservation officer then turned this info over to the task force, and who knows where it went from there. It's not particularly clear if the conservation officer was actually tasked with taking in tips or basically did the interview because it was the right thing to do, turned it over to the task force, and then it slipped between the cracks and was never followed up on.

MOO
 
I think if the original intent was to abduct one or more live persons, he would have parked much closer. Moving them from the bridge all the way back to the CPS building alive would have been about as risky as it gets. I'm stuck on either an intent to kill or an intent to confront that went awry. And based on the timeline, I have a tough time believing it was random either.
I think it is pretty obvious that whatever he intended was planned and that whatever the plan was went south . I just cannot believe that this outcome was his desired result. I do think he was trying to take at least one victim from the scene alive. Maybe both and I do believe Libby is the reason the plan went south ..As always IMO..
 
boom I did my crash course in Indiana bar rules, Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(c):

“Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client.”

The recent publicity since the unsealing of the PCA definitely had a prejudicial effect, and thus under this rule RA’s lawyer was absolutely within his right to make the statement he did yesterday, IMO.

(Just in case anyone takes me literally I didn’t actually do any course in IN bar rules, I just read the rules. Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct)
 
As I just happen to have it on hand, this was it from 2017. As the information he offered is limited, it doesn’t appear he was formally questioned at that time.

View attachment 384593
Here's what I'm trying to understand... why would he park where he did when public parking on Sherry Mears land was .6 miles and 11 minutes (walking) CLOSER to where he came out at (thru the cemetery). He risked being seen bloodied up for over a half a mile and ~10 minutes! There has GOT TO BE a reason for that (other than stupidity to park further away. lol)

Can any of you sleuthers come up with possibilities? I came up with only one thus far and that's because it was where others park and he wanted to park away from people. I guess the risk of being seen in that .6 miles & 11 minutes was less risky than parking closer?

1670033389495.png

Direct link to map between where he parked and were public parking used to be if you want to fiddle with it.

A carved wooden sign that was on County Road 300 North, on private property that was owned by the late Sherry Mears, has been taken down and the parking area that was there has been barred to keep people from parking there.

High Bridge access changes, parking will no longer be allowed off of 300 North

Address of where he parked - Township Board members, McCain, president Joe Mayfield and Jayne Abbott, along with the trustee, have been in discussions with a land developer since mid-October to purchase the Old Social Services Building, located at 6932W. CR300N.
 
The reason you might not have been able to find what you remembered is that it wasn't the police chief who said this....in a news conference on February 15th, two days after the murders, Sgt. Kim Riley, who at that time was the public information officer for the ISP in that region, said this:

“I think people need to be cautious and careful,” Riley said. “Parents should make sure they know where their children are and what their children are doing, and if nothing else, know what’s going on in their lives. That’s the most important thing I can say at this point in time.” Source: Police ask for assistance in identifying man seen walking on trail where Delphi teens went missing

I remembered this for a very long time as "parents need to know what their kids are doing online." Then I found this news article and thought I had misheard or misunderstood.

Eventually another poster here pointed out that there was another member of LE who referenced this case and social media. He was the Flora Town Marshal (LE in a neighboring town), perhaps not in the inner circle of the Delphi investigation, but also not totally unaware of what was going on as all local towns were assisting. On March 8th 2017 he said this:

“Parents need to know where their kids are and what they are doing.” Redmon went on to explain, “if there is anything good that has come out of this, it is that kids on social media are being looked into. With social media, anyone can talk to anyone else all over the world.”
“Kids are talking to people they don’t know and some (of these people) have been sexual predators,” he said.
Redmon’s advice to parents is to be parents first and be aware of what kids are doing on social media. “Kids should not be online friends with people parents would not want to stay over at their house,” Redmon concluded. Source: Flora Police discuss dangers connected to social media - Carroll County Comet

It's actually unclear to me if he was speaking about safety for kids in general/his own assumptions or with knowledge of specific goings-on in this case.
Thank-you! It's been nagging at me for a long time... can't even imagine how much time I've spent trying to find that information. Last sentence BBM because that was exactly the information I was hoping to be able to verify either way. Maybe one day we'll know the answer to that question.
 
boom I did my crash course in Indiana bar rules, Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(c):

“Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client.”

The recent publicity since the unsealing of the PCA definitely had a prejudicial effect, and thus under this rule RA’s lawyer was absolutely within his right to make the statement he did yesterday, IMO.

(Just in case anyone takes me literally I didn’t actually do any course in IN bar rules, I just read the rules. Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct)
Indeed. I don't see the danger to a jury pool that others see. At this point that ship has sailed on a cruise around the world with stops in numerous ports many times.

Also, I don't think complete ignorance of a case is required to be a juror, right? The question is one of being willing to set aside a personal opinion & rule on the evidence presented in court. I think fair minded jurors can be found, especially if there is a change of venue.
YMMV!
JMO
 
Mother of legal systems? Oh, the ghost of Marcus Tullius Cicero is probably glaring down at you from the afterlife, shaking his head sadly.

Along with a host of rabbis!

Probably Chinese scholars, come to think of it.

Maybe the librarians in Fez or Alexandria or (what remains of) Timbuktu would have reference material for us?
 
The RL warrant looked pretty convincing even knowing full well that he had been allowed to get old and die a free man after the search was carried out. Chadwell REALLY had me sold for a couple of months, until it became obvious the Delphi team simply wasn't interested in him. Maybe I'm a sucker for a decently written statement of probable cause. But I believe RA when he says he didn't know RL or knowingly visit his property.

Edited to delete what I added before. Dumb question.
 
Last edited:
The probable cause doc, it contains the notes of the interview RA had with the officer in 2017

"He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone"
It's a no school day. RA expects to be believed when he says he was "searching for fish?" and also "watching a stock ticker on his phone" while walking across a rotten wooden bridge (to sharpen his balancing and coordination skills?) and taking a very long, rambling nature walk in the woods... ahh, the fresh air. How many things don't belong in this picture?
ETA: The guys I know may go near to a water area and look for fish but they always bring their fishing rods, lures and bait along just in case the fishing looks good.
 
Last edited:
It's a no school day. RA expects to be believed when he says he was "searching for fish?" and also "watching a stock ticker on his phone" while walking across a rotten wooden bridge (to sharpen his balancing and coordination skills?) and taking a very long, rambling nature walk in the woods... ahh, the fresh air. How many things don't belong in this picture?
ETA: The guys I know may go near to a water area and look for fish but they always bring their fishing rods, lures and bait along just in case the fishing looks good.
Aw, c'mon. Fish washing for him was all about being mediative. ;) (kidding, of course)

And the way the witnesses described him... he needed something mediative.
 
The round by itself would not be probable cause, but all of the facts together do form probable cause. Even if they had not matched it to his specific firearm (but rather just Sig Sauer P226s in general), it would still be one piece of a body of evidence that would form the overall probable cause. If you took any one element on its own, probably not very strong. Altogether? Easily meets the probable cause threshold IMO.

MOO
I agree.

But my presumption, which I believe is not contradicted by the PCA or anything shared by LE, is that LE had almost all the information in the PCA in 2017 within days of the crime, and they did not have probable cause for a search or arrest or they would have done so. (I do not believe they missed or forgot the information provided by RA and witnesses that were provided in the first days following the crime.) Obviously they had the bullet, and the recording in which one of the girls said "gun", plus RA's admission he was on the bridge and most likely a very good idea that he might have been BG.

So last month, following the second interview, it's reasonable to think he said something revealing that could provide probable cause to search his property or his cell phone records, the probable cause they did not have for 5 years. That may have been as simple as whether he even owned a gun, especially if he finally told them he owned the Sig with the same bullets as the one found at the crime scene. That would add enough to finally have probable cause for the search. And upon finding his gun and matching it to the bullet at the crime scene, they would finally have probable cause for an arrest, consistent with what I gleaned from reading the arrest warrant.

(I do not believe LE withholds evidence from an arrest warrant trying to have just enough for an arrest. They explain all the evidence they have that could contribute to probable cause for the arrest. Anything they did not include in the PCA was probably just too weak to bother with, not super strong evidence they want to hide.)

Some of the above could be wrong, but if it is correct then the bullet is THE key piece of evidence that justifies the probable cause for the arrest which they presumably did not have for five years. It seems to be the only thing that puts him at the scene of the crime.

Otherwise all they had was suggestive evidence that he was on the bridge. Walking on the bridge is not a crime. Seeming creepy or intimidating is not a crime. Saying "Down the hill" is not a crime unless there was also a threat or provable attempt to force them to do so. The girls saying "gun" makes it seem like they were saying he had a gun, but it's not a slam dunk like if they said "do what he says he's pointing a gun at us" - just for argument sake they could have seen a bulge in his jacket or just worried he had a gun because of his tone. If there was clear evidence of a crime on the bridge (kidnapping) and probable cause that RA was BG, they could have easily gotten a search warrant that we know they did not get (or failed to get) for five more years.

So my question is, just how big of a coincidence is it that a bullet was found at the crime scene? Are the woods in Indiana full of bullets? When I go hiking I hear gun shots all the time, and many people I meet have guns and ammunition. I don't assume anything about whether a bullet near the crime scene is just a coincidence because they are everywhere, or highly unusual like finding murder victims thus clearly something the murderer left behind.

The rest of the case against RA is compelling but circumstantial, not so strong that LE stopped investigating others. They switched to focusing on RL and later KAK as prime suspects. You could argue of course that they were just being thorough by investigating everyone, but the RL warrant says LE believes RL was the murderer, not that he was the second best suspect.

The bullet, I contend, is the difference. So it is critical to know how unusual it is to find a bullet anywhere in that part of the country, how unusual it is to match RA's gun, how strong the forensics are that match the bullet to the specific gun. It would be fairly easy to scour a square mile of the park away from the crime scene and determine that no other bullets were scattered randomly on the ground. Or if I were on the defense I might go out and see if I could find hundreds of them no where near crime scene. With so much riding on that bullet (imo), I'd want to know everything about it.

For those who believe the bullet was just another contributing factor to the probable cause, it would be interesting to know whether a search warrant or an arrest warrant for RA was attempted and rejected by a judge prior to the bullet/gun connection to RA. I suspect that failed attempts at warrants are never public, but maybe they are public records or fair discovery once a successful warrant clears? Does a lawyer on this forum know the answer?
 
In the PCA, a woman stated she went to the bridge, saw a man on the bridge, turned around and went back down the trail. Walking away from the bridge she saw what LE believes to be A & L walking towards the bridge. So, assuming he is the bad guy self-reporting. Not only was he seen, he saw someone see him on the bridge. So when he self reported, he had to put himself on the bridge. And it was between 1:30-3:30, the time of the crime. Wearing clothes that match the man in Libby's video.

Unbelievably, the follow up recommendations at the bottom of the report from the conservation officer that includes this information indicate that LE needs to find the young ladies that Rick told the officer he saw on the trails that day. Maybe they have some information that can help find the bad guy! Smh.
Did conservation officer ask Rick what he had worn to the trail on the day of the murder? If not, why not? Had he seen the video Libby made? If so, what were his thoughts about Rick when he met hI’m? Bet he didn’t write any down and if Rick gave no creepy vibe why would he?
 
Here's what I'm trying to understand... why would he park where he did when public parking on Sherry Mears land was .6 miles and 11 minutes (walking) CLOSER to where he came out at (thru the cemetery). He risked being seen bloodied up for over a half a mile and ~10 minutes! There has GOT TO BE a reason for that (other than stupidity to park further away. lol)

Can any of you sleuthers come up with possibilities? I came up with only one thus far and that's because it was where others park and he wanted to park away from people. I guess the risk of being seen in that .6 miles & 11 minutes was less risky than parking closer?

View attachment 384604

Direct link to map between where he parked and were public parking used to be if you want to fiddle with it.

A carved wooden sign that was on County Road 300 North, on private property that was owned by the late Sherry Mears, has been taken down and the parking area that was there has been barred to keep people from parking there.

High Bridge access changes, parking will no longer be allowed off of 300 North

Address of where he parked - Township Board members, McCain, president Joe Mayfield and Jayne Abbott, along with the trustee, have been in discussions with a land developer since mid-October to purchase the Old Social Services Building, located at 6932W. CR300N.
Someone else may have been involved: as a get away driver who was supposed to pick him and his victim(s) up at the cemetery? Plan went south. He messaged or called the other guy and he bailed on foot? Would the harvest store cam pick up a driver AND passenger going past? Perp exits bloody and muddy. It was maybe RA or an accomplice? Why did he look like he maybe was in a fight if no signs of a fight on the kids? Maybe he and someone did fight at the scene? How does RA leave and is he seen in any other cams as he exits?
 
Last edited:
(I do not believe LE withholds evidence from an arrest warrant trying to have just enough for an arrest. They explain all the evidence they have that could contribute to probable cause for the arrest. Anything they did not include in the PCA was probably just too weak to bother with, not super strong evidence they want to hide.)
RSBM

LE absolutely would omit certain key evidence, especially if it may implicate another person or pose some sort of other risk to the investigation. They know everything in that document has a solid chance of becoming public very close to the arrest. They also know the accused will get access to it almost immediately as well. This makes it very beneficial to only include enough to make solid PC, and nothing more.

It also helps at trial in that they’re not turning over their entire playbook to the defense with every move they’re going to make. The defense is entitled to discovery, but not how that discovery fits together to make the state’s case until it comes out during trial. I’ve seen defense attorneys make complete fools out of themselves because they weren’t actually aware of what was in discovery when it was brought up by the state. That’s big with a jury.

MOO
 
The timing IMO is too precise to be accidental.

He didn't park in a common area because he didn't want to be seen.

He was in a hurry IMO to get in place.

I suspect he was also on a hurry then to get home. Before anyone else IMO.

I wonder where he was at noon and at 5pm that day. Before and after.

And who he may have communicated with. And by what means.

I believe there's more to come.

Not just a murderer, a predator.

JMO
 
Quick glance, dark blue coat and possibly black face covering. Witness focuses on the thing out of place -- the face covering, or dark blue jacket -- and remembers the BG as being dressed in "black" instead of "dark."

Such is memory.

Is a DT likely to harp on it? Sure.

Was she mistaken? Almost certainly not. IMO.
Exactly.
Remember when the question of whether a dress was blue and black or white and gold broke the internet?
It could be as simple as our brain’s perception of lighting, shadows and surrounding colors.

SCIENCE Why the dress is blue (but white to you)

The perception of color can be influenced by lighting as well as surrounding colors, the psychologist said.
Google artist Josef Albers, for example, and you can find several works in which two squares of the same color will appear different - orange and brown, say - depending on the colors that surround them.
"The brain codes color relative to everything else in the image," Brainard said. "The brain is basically constantly adjusting what you might call its color balance, its white balance."
 
I agree. It’s completely perplexing to me that RA would admit to wearing basically the same clothes as BG in the video. Surely he had seen the still image back in 2017.
And how does one accidentally drop an unspent round from a gun? I have no clue about guns so there might be a simple explanation.
It just makes no sense that a guilty man would be so forthcoming, non-evasive, etc. IMOO
Coincidentally, I happen to have a .40 S&W Sig P226... Kind of feels a little weird now. But:

The full firearm with magazine ejected:
View attachment 384414

Firearm loaded with extractor circled (and serial blacked out):
View attachment 384413

Close-up of extractor hooking onto the flared end of an unspent round (circled):
View attachment 384412

The extractor theoretically leaves tool marks on the unspent round that are unique to that extractor and firearm, especially if it is an older firearm that has very unique extractor wear from years of use.

JMO
However, its not nearly as conclusive as matching the marks left on a spent round. I can't recall any case where this type evidence has been used. Can you?
The markings are not from removing the round from the magazine, they are from chambering the round. It would appear that a round was already chambered when RA drew the slide and ejected the round that was found near the bodies. Perhaps he preferred to carry the gun NOT ready to fire.
That still is not conclusive, as in when a firing pin strikes and the round is shot through the barrel.

I can't buy that he was worried about unchambering a round, after he'd just killed, with sharp force injuries, a 13 and 14 year-old, dragged them some distance, posed their bodies, and stole an article or more of clothing. I can't get there. Sure, maybe he usually preferred to carry without a round. But then, why chamber a round to begin with? (If someone draws a weapon on me, I won't be debating whether or not it's ready to fire with a trigger pull. I'd be convinced.) If he chambered it, would be really be so concerned about THAT in that moment? Why would he waste a split second to do anything other than getting out of there?
 
The witness is not technically describing what she saw or what the person was wearing, she is saying what her memory is telling her. If you accept the fallibility of human recall, this isn't a concern.
The concern is that that witness will need to identify RA as the man she saw, and she couldn't even recall blue over black, when the jeans weren't even dark blue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,470
Total visitors
2,583

Forum statistics

Threads
590,015
Messages
17,929,018
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top